RULE 21

When application for a subpoena to a prisoner is made, the

SECTION 1. Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum.—
Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him or
her to attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an
action, or at any investigation conducted by competent
authority, or for the taking of his or her deposition. It may
also require him or her to bring with him or her any books,
documents, or other things under his or her control, in
which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum. (1a)
Comment:
Subpoena ad testificandum – if the purpose is just to testify
judge or officer shall examine and study carefully such
application to determine whether the same is made for a
valid purpose.
No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment and who is confined in any penal institution
shall be brought outside the penal institution for
appearance or attendance in any court unless authorized by
the Supreme Court. (2a)
Comment: in all of these cases there must be a proceeding.

Subpoena duces tecum If it requires the person to bring 1. The court before whom There is a pending case
documents under his control the witness is required to
attend;
TWO TYPES OF SUBPOENA 2. The court of the place There is a deposition to be
where the deposition is to taken
1. SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM, which is a process be taken;
directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify: 3. The officer or body There is an investigation
authorized by law to do so
a. at the hearing or the trial of an action; or in connection with
b. at any investigation conducted by competent investigations conducted
authority; or by said officer or body; or
c. for the taking of his deposition 4. Any Justice of the There is a pending
Supreme Court or the investigation
2. SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, which is a process directed to Court of Appeals in any
a person requiring him to bring with him any books, case or investigation
documents, or other things under his control. pending within the
Philippines.
The subpoena duces tecum is, in all respects, like the
ordinary subpoena ad testificandum with the exception that Take note of the last paragraph:
it concludes with an injunction that the witness shall bring
with him and produce at the examination the books, No prisoner sentenced to death, reclusion perpetua or life
documents, or things described in the subpoena (H.C. imprisonment and who is confined in any penal institution
LIEBENOW vs. THE PHILIPPINE VEGETABLE OIL COMPANY, shall be brought outside the penal institution for
39 Phil. 60) appearance or attendance in any court unless authorized by
the Supreme Court.
PROCESS
Requisites:
1. sentence is death, reclusion perpetua or life
Process is "the means whereby a court compels the
imprisonment and
appearance of the defendant before it; or a compliance with
2. who is confined in any penal institution
its demands."

here, there should be authority from the SC even if you are

ORIGIN OF THE WORD “SUBPOENA”
any of those persons authorized from A-D pero nakadetain,
you need authorization by the SC.
The word subpoena is a Latin term which literally means
"under penalty". It has its source in English common law
which originated from the first words of the writ
SEC. 3. Form and contents.—A subpoena shall state the
commanding the presence of someone, In some
name of the court and the title of the action or investigation,
jurisdictions, the term has been replaced by witness
shall be directed to the person whose attendance is
summons.
required, and in the case of a subpoena duces tecum, it shall
also contain a reasonable description of the books,
SEC. 2. By whom issued.—The subpoena may be issued by— documents or things demanded which must appear to the
court prima facie relevant. (3)
1. The court before whom the witness is required to attend;
2. The court of the place where the deposition is to be taken;
DUTY OF THE CLERK OF COURT
3. The officer or body authorized by law to do so in
connection with investigations conducted by said officer
The Clerk of Court is primarily tasked with making out and
or body; or
issuing all writs and processes issuing from the court. Absent
4. Any Justice of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals
any proceedings, suit, or action commenced or pending
in any case or investigation pending within the Philippines.
before a court, a subpoena may not issue. Where there is no
action or proceeding commenced or pending before a court,
the Clerk of Court has absolutely neither the power nor the
authority nor the duty to issue a subpoena to a person
(COLLADO vs. BRAVO, ETC., A.M. No. P-99-1307, April 10,
2001).
Note: even admin bodies can issue subpoena such as an
ombudsman.
REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM
ROCO vs. CONTRERAS
G.R. No. 158275, June 28, 2005
Well-settled is the rule that before a subpoena duces tecum
may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the following
requisites are present:
(1) the books, documents or other things requested must
appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the
controversy (test of relevancy); and
(2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties
to be readily identified (test of definiteness).
TEST OF RELEVANCY
This test requires that the proof sought to be obtained by
means of the subpoena is prima facie sufficiently relevant to
justify enforcing its production (H.C. LIEBENOW vs. THE
PHILIPPINE VEGETABLE OIL COMPANY, 39 Phil. 60). It must
appear, by clear and unequivocal proof, that the book or
document sought to be produced contains evidence
relevant and material to the issue before the court
(ARNALDO vs. LOCSIN, 69 Phil. 113).
Comment: the testimony or evidence must be relevant to
justify enforcing production.
RELEVANT EVIDENCE, or evidence which has a tendency in
reason to establish the probability or improbability of the
fact in issue. Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove
or disprove a material fact. Evidence having a tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence. Even if the documents
sought to be produced are merely collateral or
circumstantial and therefore, does not directly prove a
material point, a subpoena may still be issued if such
documents tends in any reasonable degree to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
Comment: kana sya na evidence would establish if the fact in
issue is true or not.
TEST OF DEFINITENESS
This test means that, in determining whether the production
of the documents described in a subpoena duces tecum
should be enforced by the court, it is proper to consider
whether the subpoena calls for the production of specific
documents, or rather for specific proof A general
inquisitorial examination of all the books, papers, and
documents of an adversary, conducted with a view to
ascertain whether something of value may not show up, will
not be enforced (H.C. LIEBENOW vs. THE PHILIPPINE
VEGETABLE OIL COMPANY, 39 Phil. 60). The precise book,
paper or document containing such evidence must be so
designated or described that it may be (ARNALDO vs.
LOCSIN, 69 Phil. 113).
Comment: when you ask for subpoena you must be very
sure that tehse docs you are requesting would establish or
disprove the fact in issue. Dili ga you are just hoping na nay
something in that doc which may or may not establish.
So lahi nang you are sure that these documents will
establish vs you are hoping that there is something in that
document which will establish or not. For example if you are
asking for some inventories and they relate to a specific
period, you must specify. Kay muingon ra kag inventories of
the corporation, unsa, tanan? You have to specify.
SEC. 4. Quashing a subpoena.—The court may quash a
subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and, in
any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is
unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevancy of the books,
documents or things does not appear, or if the person in
whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
reasonable cost of the production thereof.
The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum on the
ground that the witness is not bound thereby. In either case,
the subpoena may be quashed on the ground that the
witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these Rules were
not tendered when the subpoena was served. (4)
QUASHAL OR DISSOLUTION OF A SUBPOENA
Under Section 4, the court may quash subpoenae UPON A
MOTION PROMPTLY MADE by the party opposed to their
issuance. The quashal is properly made at or before the time
specified in the subpoena.
Comment: the first rule in quashal or dissolution, you should
do that by motion.
When to file: at or before the time specified in the
subpoena.
SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR QUASHAL:
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
A subpoena duces tecum may be quashed if:
1. The subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive;
2. The relevancy of the books, documents or things
does not appear; or
3. The person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued
fails to advance the reasonable cost of the
production thereof;
 4. The witness fees and kilometrage allowed by these
Rules were not tendered when the subpoena was
served.
a. Witness fees (rule 141 and SC admin
matter 00-2-01-SC) for every day of
attendance in court there is a specific
amount of compensation. Dapat bayaran
ka kay basi makaabsent ka sa imong
trabaho so you have to be paid.
Comment: you have to distinguish between duces tecum
and ad testificandum because there are different grounds.
OTHER GROUNDS FOR QUASHAL OF A
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
In addition to those stated in Section 4, the following
grounds may also be used to quash a subpoena duces
tecum:
1. The subpoena relates to books, documents or things that
constitute privileged communication or information,
and therefore inadmissible under the Rules of Evidence;
a. Cannot be divulged without the consent of the
party who enjoys the privilege. Example:
medical records are confidential.
2. The subpoena relates to books, documents or things that
are otherwise inadmissible for being in violation of
Constitutional rights (i.e. right to privacy, etc.);
3. The subpoena relates to books, documents or things that
are declared by law to be absolutely confidential (i.e.
SECTION 2, SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS ACT, REPUBLIC
ACT NO.1405)
a. SECTION 2. All deposits of whatever nature with
banks or banking institutions in the Philippines
including investments in bonds issued by the
Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are
hereby considered as of an absolutely
confidential nature and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office, EXCEPT
i. upon written permission of the
depositor, or
ii. in cases of impeachment, or
upon order of a competent court
in cases of bribery or dereliction
of duty of public officials, or
iii. in cases where the money
deposited or invested is the
subject matter of the litigation.
SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR QUASHAL:
SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM
The court may quash a subpoena ad testificandum on the
ground that:
1. The witness is not bound thereby; or
a. If the witness resides more than 100km
from where the court sits. So in civil
cases, the witness is not bound to comply
with the subpoena (Sec 10)
2. The witness fees and kilometrage allowed by the
Rules of Court were not tendered when the
subpoena was served.
Note that the second ground is applicable (“in either case”)
to both a subpoena duces tecum and a subpoena ad
testificandum.
WITNESS FEES AND KILOMETRAGE
Kilometrage is mentioned in Rule 141, as amended by A.M.
NO. 00-2-01-SC, March 01, 2000.
Under that admin matter, for example you are a witness in
the SC, CA and RTC, imohang witness fees would be 100
pesos per day inclusive of travel time. Sa courts of first level,
50 pesos per day.
VIATORY RIGHT OF A WITNESS
What is the meaning of the so-called “viatory right of a
witness”?
A: right of w witness not to comply with a subpoena. It may
be exercised in civil cases if the witness resides more than
100 km from his residence to the place where he is to testify
via the ordinary course of travel.
SEC. 5. Subpoena for depositions.—Proof of service of a
notice to take a deposition, as provided in Sections 15 and
25 of Rule 23, shall constitute sufficient authorization for
the issuance of subpoenas for the persons named in said
notice by the clerk of the court of the place in which the
deposition is to be taken. The clerk shall not, however, issue
a subpoena duces tecum to any such person without an
order of the court. (5) (note: the clerk of court shall wait for
the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum)
SEC. 6. Service.—Service of a subpoena shall be made in the
same manner as personal or substituted service of
summons. The original shall be exhibited and a copy
thereof delivered to the person on whom it is served. The
service must be made so as to allow the witness a
reasonable time for preparation and travel to the place of
attendance. (eg he has to bring documents na pngitaunon
kayo so dapat naa pa syay time ana)
Costs for court attendance and the production of
documentary and other materials subject of the subpoena
shall be tendered or charged accordingly. (6a)
So note you have to advance the fees required. Otherwise it is
a ground for the quashal of the subpoena.

MODES OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA
Service of a subpoena may be made in the following
manner:
1. PERSONAL SERVICE, which means that a subpoena may
be served pursuant to manner prescribed under Rule 14,
Section 5. (priority)
2. SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, which means that a subpoena may
be served pursuant to the manner prescribed under Rule 14,
Section 6.
Q: Is there service of subpoena by publication? Diba in
summons pwede magserve by publication?
A: the rule does not mention service of subpoena by
publication. It is NOT one of the modes of service of
subpoena.
SEC. 7. Personal appearance in court.— A person present in
court before a judicial officer may be required to testify as if
he or she were in attendance upon a subpoena issued by
such court or officer. (7a)
Comment:
GR: a witness cannot be compelled to testify if no subpoena
has been served upon him.
EXCEPTION: a person present in court before a judicial
officer may be required to testify even if no subpoena
previously issued upon him.
SEC. 8. Compelling attendance.—In case of failure of a
witness to attend, the court or judge issuing the subpoena,
upon proof of the service thereof and of the failure of the
witness, may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the province, or
his or her deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him or her
before the court or officer where his or her attendance is
required, and the cost of such warrant and seizure of such
witness shall be paid by the witness if the court issuing it
shall determine that his or her failure to answer the
subpoena was willful and without just excuse. (8a)
Comment: so even if it’s a civil case pwede ka as witness
mapreso even before the defendant. For example under sec
8. Maissuehan kag warrant if dili ka magtestify and the cost
of the warrant and seizure will be paid by the witness.
SEC. 9. Contempt—Failure by any person without adequate
cause to obey a subpoena served upon him or her shall
deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena
is issued. If the subpoena was not issued by a court, the
disobedience thereto shall be punished in accordance with
the applicable law or Rule (9a)
Comment:
Issued by court – contempt of court
Not issued by court (ombudsman) – in accordance with
applicable law or rule
SANCTIONS FOR FAILRUE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA:
1. Arrest
2. Contempt
FIRST SANCTION: ARREST
The court or judge issuing the subpoena, may upon motion
or motu proprio, issue a warrant to the sheriff or his deputy
to arrest the witness and bring him before the court,
provided the following requisites are present:
1. There must be proof of service of the subpoena
upon the person named therein; and
2. There must also be proof of the failure of the
witness to attend.
Note: cost of warrant and seizure shall be paid by the
witness who failed to obey without lawful and just cause.
SECOND SANCTION: CONTEMPT
Failure by any person without adequate cause to obey a
subpoena served upon him shall be deemed a contempt of
the court from which the subpoena is issued.
Q: What type of contempt (direct or indirect) will the witness
be liable for?
A: INDIRECT CONTEMPT (Rule 71)
Rule 71, Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after
charge and hearing. — After a charge in writing has been
filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to
comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the
court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty
of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to
prevent the court from issuing process to bring the
respondent into court, or from holding him in custody
pending such proceedings.
Comment:
A reading of sec 3 of rule 71 and sec 8 and 9 of rule (21)
would appear that the sanctions of arrest and contempt are
NOT mutually exclusive.
Both sanctions may be imposed upon a witness who fails to
comply with a subpoena. A witness arrested under section 8
may also be declared in contempt and a witness declared in
contempt may also be arrested.
Both sanctions can even be imposed at the same time.
Q: Can a witness arrested under Section 8 be also declared
in contempt?
“ADEQUATE CAUSE” UNDER SECTION 9
(exempts one from complying with a subpoena)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JESUS FRANCISCO
 G.R. No. 163089, December 6, 2006
Mayor issued a memo not to release any important
document or records in their department so because of this
the municipal officers did not comply with the subpoena.
Would that be an adequate cause not to release the docs
asked? NO.
The officer or employee concerned may be excused or
justified for being unable to comply with the subpoena
duces tecum. However, the inability which excuses must
be real. Self-created inability will not suffice; nor will
passivity when reasonable efforts might secure compliance.
Any excuse or exception for non-compliance is distinctly
exceptional being derogative of the mandate of the law and
must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
According to SC; the mayor has no power to prohibit
municipal officers from releasing documents. These officers
were heads of the departments. While mayor had
supervision, he could not prohibit them. SO if the mayor’s
order was illegal the compliance with that order would be
illegal. So that is not an adequate cause.
RECALCITRANT WITNESS
What is a “recalcitrant witness”?
A: one who disobeys of fails to comply with a subpoena
compelling him to appear before the court
What are the distinctions between an “absent witness” and a
“recalcitrant witness”?
Recalcitrant Absent witness
one who disobeys of fails May or may not have been
to comply with a subpoena subpoenad. So absent
compelling him to appear witness may also be
before the court after recalcitrant.
being properly compelled
by order.
Signifies a notice which May be due to lack of
was disobeyed proper notice
SEC. 10. Exceptions.—The provisions of Sections 8 and 9 this
Rule shall not apply to a witness who resides more than one
hundred (100) kilometers from his or her residence to the
place where he or she is to testify by the ordinary course of
travel, or to a detention prisoner if no permission of the
court in which his or her case is pending was obtained. (10a)
Sec 8 (arrest)
Sec 9 (indirect contempt)
2 exceptions:
1. Witness who resides > 100km from the place
where he would testify (viatory right)
2. When the one who is subpoenad is a detention
prisoner and there is no permission from the court
where his case is pending
VIATORY RIGHT OF A WITNESS
As previously noted, the so-called “viatory right of a witness”
refers to the right of a witness not to comply with a
subpoena. The viatory right may be exercised in civil cases
if the witness resides more than 100 kilometers from his
residence to the place where he is to testify by the ordinary
course of travel (Sec. 10, Rule 21, asked in the 2009 Bar
Examinations, PEOPLE vs. MONTEJO, G.R. No. L-24154,
October 31, 1967). BAR Q!!
The Supreme Court in an old case, PEOPLE vs. MONTEJO,
G.R. No. L-24154, October 31, 1967, held that the viatory
right of a witness is applicable only to civil cases and not to
criminal cases. This was reiterated in the case of GEÑORGA
vs. HON. PEDRO C. QUITAIN, A.M. No. 981-CFI, July 29,
1977.
Note: the viatory right of a witness is applicable only to CIVL
cases and not to criminal cases. Why?
RATIONALE OF MONTEJO RULING
Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution provides in
part that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence
in his behalf. This constitutional right enjoys preference over
the merely procedural viatory right of a witness.
Because this viatory right is procedural law and consti is the
fundamental law so the latter prevails over the rules of court.
MODIFICATIONS AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE MONTEJO RULING
With the changes to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is
posited that the scope of the viatory right of witnesses has
now been expanded.
It appears that the viatory right of a witness is now also
applicable to witnesses for the accused pursuant to
Section 12, Rule 119, to wit:
Section 12. Application for examination of witness for
accused before trial. — When the accused has been held to
answer for an offense, he may, upon motion with notice to
the other parties, have witnesses conditionally examined in
his behalf.
The motion shall state:
(a) the name and residence of the witness;
(b) the substance of his testimony; and
(c) that the witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable
ground for believing that he will not be able to attend the
trial, or resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers
from the place of trial and has no means to attend the same,
or that other similar circumstances exist that would make
him unavailable or prevent him from attending the trial.
The motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the accused
and such other evidence as the court may require. (4a)
Comment: the accsued can compel the attendance of
witnesses on his behalf.

Civil cases Criminal case

We cannot compel the Udner montejo ruling: such
attendance of a witness imitation does not apply in
even by subpoena if that a criminal case as the
witness resides >100km accused may compel the
from place of trial and such attendance of witnesses on
limitation will not his behalf.
BUT! This was modified by Sec 12, Rule 119

If you are an accused, you have the right to compel

attendance of witnesses maskin >100km away HOWEVER
for you to be able to invoke that, you have to comply with
sec 12 of Rule 119. So what you do is file a motion (thru
counsel) in court and apply for the taking of their
deposition.

Slide: Thus, among other grounds, even if a witness resides

more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of
trial, the accused, upon motion, may have the witness
conditionally examined in his behalf. In essence, the Rules
allow the court to require the witness to make a “deposition
upon motion”. The witness will then be examined in
accordance with Section 13, Rule 119, which provides that:

Section 13. (RULE 119) Examination of defense witness; how

made. — If the court is satisfied that the examination of a
witness for the accused is necessary, an order will be made
directing that the witness be examined at a specified date,
time and place and that a copy of the order be served on the
prosecutor at least three (3) days before the scheduled
examination. The examination shall be taken before a judge,
or, if not practicable, a member of the Bar in good standing
so designated by the judge in the order, or if the order be
made by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an inferior
court to be designated therein. The examination shall
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the prosecutor
provided he was duly notified of the hearing. A written
record of the testimony shall be taken. (5a)
   SUBPOENA SUMMONS
 
To whom Directed to a witness. Directed to a defendant in a civil case.
directed
Purpose To direct the witness to appear To obtain jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and,
in court or to bring documents. as part of due process, to inform the defendant that a
complaint is filed against him and that he must file a
responsive pleading within the period allowed.

Sanction A witness may be declared in Judgment may be rendered in default against the defendant
contempt. His attendance may who fails to comply with the directive of a summons.
also be compelled by the
issuance of a warrant for his
arrest.
Applicability Applies to both criminal and civil Applies only to civil cases.
cases.
Distance There is a 100-km limitation of There is no distance limitation.
limitation its enforceability.
Allowed Regardless of the nature of the Depending on the nature of the action and the residence or
modes of action, service may be personal whereabouts of the defendant, service may be personal,
service or substituted. substituted or even extraterritorial such as service by
publication.
Nature A subpoena is a process of A summons is a writ of notification.
compulsion.
How issued A subpoena is issued usually Being a writ of right, the party filing an action is entitled to
upon application therefor. the issuance of summons without applying therefor.

By whom A subpoena is issued by those A summons is issued by the clerk of court under Section 1,
issued authorized under Section 2, Rule Rule 14.
21.
Abatement A subpoena may be quashed. A summons cannot be quashed. The defendant may instead
file a motion to dismiss or question the jurisdiction of the
court over his person.

RULE 22
Note: Master how to compute!! It affects your
representation of the case
COMPUTATION OF TIME
SECTION 1. How to compute time.— In computing
any period of time prescribed or allowed by these
Rules, or by order the court, or by any applicable
statute, the day of the act or event from which
the designated period of time begins to run is to
be excluded and the date of performance
included. If the last day of the period, as thus
computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal
holiday in the place where the court sits, the time
shall not run until the next working day. (1)
Example: you are the defendant and you received
summons. When received? April 30 2020. How do
we compute? Count 30 days from April 30. So you
don’t include April 30 didto na ta magsugod sa May
1. Apil baa ng may 1 basig holiday sya? Apil baa ng
Saturday Sunday sa pagcompute? YES apil sila. So
walay labot ang date nga kung kanus a nato
nareceive ang order.
Received April 30
So exclude April 30
Start at May 1
30 days would be May 30. Supposedly mao na sya
ang deadline. If you look at the calendar, that’s a
Saturday. So meaning di ka pwede magfile ana. So
dili pa kana imong deadline. So sunod sa 30 is 31
which is a Sunday. So kanus a man? It’s june 1
assuming it’s not a holiday.
So exclude first day (day when you received eg
notice) and date of performance included.
SEC. 2. Effect of interruption.— Should an act be
done which effectively interrupts the running of the
period, the allowable period after such interruption
shall start to run on the day after notice of the
cessation of the cause thereof.
The day of the act that caused the interruption shall
be excluded in the computation of the period. (2)
Example: the defendant received summons on April
30 2020. He has 30 days to file answer. Assuming
that on May 11 he filed a MTD based on the 4
grounds. Under the rules, the effect of filing an MTD
interrupts the period to file an answer. So when
defendant filed the MTD on May 11 and he received
summons on April 30, 2020, how many days nalang
ang nabilin sa iya to file an answer? EG ideny ni
court ang MTD sa defendant. What happens kung
madeny? The defendant will have to file an answer.
How many days nalang bilin to file answer?
A: he will have 10 days.
Why? Pursuant to par 2 of sec 2. So he received
summons april 30. We count starting may 1.
May 1 to 10, 10 days consumed. May 11, when
defendant filed MTD, di na apil sa na consumed na
kay interrupted na. Let us assume na paspas
nagdeicde si court. So nakareceive si defendant on
June 3 a copy of the order of the court denying the
motion to dismiss. So defendant has to answer
within the remaining period. SO 30-10 days, 20 days
pa. Where to start counting? June 4. If nakareceive
sya sa order sa June 3, Start counting from June 4
and deadline is June 23.
Basis:
SEC. 2. Effect of interruption.— Should an act be
done which effectively interrupts the running of the
period, the allowable period after such interruption
shall start to run on the day after notice of the
cessation of the cause thereof.
Read: Labitad, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.
53877, July 17, 1995)
A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC
JACA MONTAJES vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 183449, March 12, 2012
We then clarified the above-quoted provision when
we issued A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC dated February 29,
2000 (Re: Computation of Time When the Last Day
Falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a Legal Holiday and a
Motion for Extension on Next Working Day is
Granted) which reads:
Whereas, the aforecited provision [Section 1, Rule
22 of the Rules of Court] applies in the matter of
filing of pleadings in courts when the due date falls
on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, in which
case, the filing of the said pleading on the next
working day is deemed on time;
Any extension of time to file the required pleading
should therefore be counted from the expiration of
the period regardless of the fact that said due date is
a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
Whereas, the question has been raised if the period
is extended ipso jure to the next working day
immediately following where the last day of the
period is a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, so
that when a motion for extension of time is filed,
the period of extension is to be reckoned from the
next working day and not from the original
expiration of the period.
NOW THEREFORE, the Court Resolves, for the
guidance of the Bench and the Bar, to declare that
Section 1, Rule 22 speaks only of "the last day of the
period" so that when a party seeks an extension and
the same is granted, the due date ceases to be the
last day and hence, the provision no longer applies.
Any extension of time to file the required pleading
should therefore be counted from the expiration of
the period regardless of the fact that said due date
is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
We find that the CA correctly ruled that the petition
for review was filed out of time based on our
clarification in A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC that the 15-day
extension period prayed for should be tacked to the
original period and commences immediately after
the expiration of such period. Thus, counting 15
days from the expiration of the period which was on
May 19, 2007, the petition filed on June 5, 2007 was
already two days late. However, we find the
circumstances obtaining in this case to merit the
liberal application of the rule in the interest of
justice and fair play.
Comment:
So you received summons on April 30 2020 he has
30 days to fie answer. 30 days from that is May 30
but is a Saturday and next day is Sunday,. So
deadline is June 1 2020.
But what if instead of filing an answer on June 1 the
defendant filed a motion for extension to file
answer? (you’re allowed one for a period not
exceeding 30 days) ang motion for extension on
June 1, is that still timely? YES
The deadline for filing the answer no becomes Juen
1 2020 and any motion for extension must be filed
within the period.
Q: When is the deadline of the answer granting the
extension?
A: under the rules, 30 days from ORIGINAL
DEADLINE which is supposed to be May 30 2020. So
you start counting there. So when I say start
counting, from May 30 2020, kanus a ang deadline?
Deadline is June 29.
Why? May 30 supposedly ang deadline jud pero
naextend kay sat and sun. If OG deadline is May 30,
extended period is counted from that point. But
exclude that so didto ka magstart sa next day after
may 30. So june 29.
RULE 23
(intro)
MODES OF DISCOVERY IN GENERAL
MEANING OF DISCOVERY
 
In general, a discovery is a device employed by a
party to obtain information about relevant matters
on the case from the adverse party in preparation for
the trial.
Comment: Before ni sya sa trial. For example you have
a peson you want to utilize as a witness but you are
not sure about the content of his testimony. If you
present him without knowing what he’ll say, he might
end up not helping. So you can have his testimony
take during deposition.
Then if you discover na useful iyang testimony, you
can use his testimony in trial. Pero if mafeel nimo na
dili diay helpful, di nalang nimo ipresent. Sa
deposition man gud, you are not bound by whatever
is said unless you offer him as a witness.
So kung dili favourable you can just decide not to
include him in the trial.
LIMITATION: Court will deny discovery if parties use it
asa fishing expedition. So gusto ra diay ka mag
request ug deposition kay wala kay idea unsa iyang
ingnon pnangita ra kag possibility na it will help you.
Dili pud pwede ang purpose sa imong depsotiion is to
annoy the kalaban or witness.
As contemplated by the Rules, the device may be
used by all the parties to the case. It is the term used
to describe a category of procedural devices
employed by a party to an action, prior to trial, to
require the adverse party to disclose information that
is essential for the preparation of the requesting
party's case and that the other party alone knows or
possesses.
Discovery devices narrow the issues of a lawsuit,
obtain evidence not readily accessible to the
applicant for use at trial, and ascertain the existence
of information that might be introduced as evidence
at trial.
A court will deny discovery if the party is using it as a
fishing expedition to ascertain information for the
purpose of starting an action or developing a
defense. A court is responsible for protecting against
the unreasonable investigation into a party's affairs
and must deny discovery if it is intended to annoy,
embarrass, oppress, or injure the parties or the
witnesses who will be subject to it. A court will stop
discovery when used in bad faith.
AIM OR PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES:
LITIGATION SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED IN THE
DARK
REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
204 SCRA 213, November 21, 1991
 
The various modes or instruments of discovery are
meant to serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-
trial hearing under Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the
basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device
for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The
evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties,
consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the
fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts
before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are
carried on in the dark. XXX
LIBERAL APPLICATION AND TREATMENT
It has been repeatedly held that deposition discovery
rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal
treatment and should not be unduly restricted if the
matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not
privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and
within the bounds of law. Otherwise, the advantage
of a liberal discovery procedure in ascertaining the
truth and expediting the disposal of litigation would
be defeated (RAMON GERARDO B. SAN LUIS vs.
HON. PABLITO M. ROJAS, ET AL., G.R. No. 159127,
March 3, 2008).
GR: deposition or modes of discovery are to
accorded a broad and liberal treatment. So the court
will usually grant it to expose the truth or expedite
disposal of litigation.
MODES OF DISCOVERY UNDER THE RULES OF
COURT
 
The following are the modes of discovery under the
Rules of Court:
 
1. Depositions pending action (Rule 23);
2. Depositions before action or pending
appeal (Rule 24);
3. Interrogatories to parties (Rule 25);
4. Admission by adverse Party (Rule 26);
5. Production or inspection of documents and
things (Rule 27); and
6. Physical and mental examination of persons
(Rule 28).
DEPOSITION Comment: lahi ni, it is NOT
  before the judge and
It refers to the written conducted usually out of court.
testimony of a witness Wede sa lawyer’s office. Here,
given in the course of a pwede na directly na pareho
judicial proceeding, in lang sa court, nay judicial
advance of the trial or affidavit as direct testimony,
hearing, upon: then he will be subject to direct
1. oral examination examination, cross andre
or direct. Ang difference lang here
 2. in response to
written
interrogatories,
and where an
opportunity is
given for cross-
examination.
INTERROGATORIES
 
These are the questions in
writing served directly on
the adverse party to be
answered by him or by his
officer. Its scope is as
broad as the field of
inquiry which a person
interrogated is called upon
to testify in an actual trial.
PRODUCTION OR
INSPECTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
 
This mode of discovery is
an exception to the
constitutional guarantee of
privacy of communication
and correspondence.
It allows the production or
inspection of documents
and other things but does
not allow them to be
distrained without the
knowledge of their lawful
owner or possessor.
ADMISSION BY ADVERSE
PARTY
 
This may be made at any
time after the pleadings
are closed. This may be
availed of by a party by
serving upon the other
party a written request for
the admission by the latter
is that kanang testimony of thisof the genuineness of any time loan was released? So yes
possible witness, dili pa jud narelevant documents or no, admit, does not admit.
mao iyang testimony. Kung described in and exhibited
wala nimo sya gipresent in with the request, or of the
court, whatever he said in truth of any relevant
deposition is considered matters a of fact set forth
mere hearsay. So if ipatestify therein.
nimo sya in court, usabon  
napud nimo tanan tung imong
giask sa deposition.
APPLICABILITY TO CRIMINAL CASES (BAR 2009)
Then aside from that pwede Note: nothing in the rules prohibits applicability to
pud written interrogatories. criminal cases in fact there are similar provisions in
Meaning imong question
rules in crim pro na still the same/ a mdoe of
during the deposition, oral discovery
or but strictly speaking they are not called
written. So meaning imong depsoitions.Eg:
direct exam cross and redirect 1. sec 12 (rule 119 conditional exam)
are written. So nay opportunity 2. sec 15 (rule 119 conditional exam)
for cross. Kung naa may
objections during the
The accused in a criminal case has the right to avail
depositons, dili na sya irule of
sathe various modes of discovery. There is nothing
deposition officer. Ang court in the Rules of Court which limit the defendant’s
ang magrule ana. right to avail of the various modes of discovery only
to civil cases. Corollarily, there are “modes of
Comment: lahi ni sa deposition.
discovery” under Rule 119 of the Rules on Criminal
Here walay proceeding
Procedure although they are not called depositions,
iconduct. IF you are the lawyer
etc. but are called other names. For instance, the
of the defendant, iprepare procedure
na under Sections 12 and 15 of Rule 119,
imong questions and serve although similar to depositions, is called conditional
directly sa kalaban to examination
be of witnesses. (See Sections 12 to 15,
answered by him/her so murag Rule 119)
exchange of letters and
communications. You don’t RULE 23 DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTION
have to set up a specific
schedule. SECTION 1. Depositions pending action, when may
be taken.— Upon ex parte motion of a party, the
You are requesting here testimony
to of any person, whether a party or not, may
have other party produce the be taken by deposition upon oral examination or
document or you want written to interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses
inspect may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as
provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only
in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a
person confined in prison may be taken only by leave
of court on such terms as the court prescribes. (1a)
Comment:
Here there is already a case pending. And how do
you request deposition?
A: upon ex parte motion of a party. Meaning, you file
directly in court and not furnish the other party.
Subject of deposition:
Adverse party
Possible witness
Lahi ni sa interrogatories kay
questions to sya that the other
How taken:
party has to answer. Kani kay
yes or no lang ang pwede Oral exam – on the date of deposition, mag atbang
itubag. Kung giadmit lang face
or to face ang parties and then direct exam, cross
wala. So will the defendant redirect. Oral tanan.
and
admit the genuineness of the
PN attached? So will defendant
Written interrogatory – written tanan.
admit that he promised to pay
the debt within 30 days from
The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by
the use of a subpoena – diba we discussed that the
notice allowing deposition is sufficient authority for
issuance of subpoena. So if igrant sa court ang
deposition, so reason na to sya to grant the use of a
subpoena.
Remember when it is a person who confined in
prison, pwede matake ang deposition:
1. by leave of court
2. on such terms as the court prescribes.
DEPOSITION DEFINED
 
DEPOSITION is the written testimony of a witness
given in the course of a judicial proceeding, in
advance of the trial or hearing, upon oral
examination or in response to written interrogatories,
and where an opportunity is given for cross-
examination (16 Am. Jur. 699, REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 112710,
May 30, 2001).
Simply, it is the testimony of a witness reduced to
writing in due form of law, taken by virtue of a
commission or other authority of a competent
tribunal.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HUBERT JEFFREY
P. WEBB
G.R. No. 132577, August 17, 1999
 
As defined, a deposition is the testimony of a witness
taken upon oral question or written interrogatories,
not in open court, but in pursuance of a commission
to take testimony issued by court, or under a general
law or court rule on the subject, and reduce to
writing and duly authenticated, and intended to be
used in preparation and upon the trial of a civil or a
criminal prosecution.
A pretrial discovery device by which one party
(through his or her attorney) ask oral questions of
the other party or of a witness for the other party.
The person who is deposed is called the deponent.
The deposition is conducted under oath outside of
the court room, usually in one of the lawyer's offices.
A transcript — word for word account — is made of
the deposition. Testimony of [a] witness, taken in
writing, under oath or affirmation, before some
judicial officer in answer to questions or
interrogatories
Comment: the person who is deposed is called the
deponent. Katong nagconduct sa deposition, is not
the judge but a person authorized to administer
oath. Every thing that happens during a deposition is
transcribed. Nakasulat word for word.
PURPOSES OF DEPOSITION-TAKING
 
The purposes of taking depositions are to:
 
1. Give greater assistance to the parties in
ascertaining the truth and in checking and
preventing perjury;
2. Provide an effective means of detecting and
exposing false, fraudulent claims and
defenses;
3. Make available in a simple, convenient and
inexpensive way, facts which otherwise
could not be proved except with great
difficulty;
4. Educate the parties in advance of trial as to
the real value of their claims and defenses
thereby encouraging settlements;
5. Expedite litigation;
6. Safeguard against surprise;
7. Prevent delay;
8. Simplify and narrow the issues; and
9. Expedite and facilitate both preparation and
trial.
TYPES OF DEPOSITIONS
 
A deposition is the taking of the testimony of any
person, whether he be a party or not, but at the
instance of a party to the action. This testimony is
taken out of court. It may be either by
(a) an oral examination, or by
(b) a written interrogatory (Sec. 1, Rule 23, Rules of
Court).
A deposition may be sought for use in a future action
(Rule 24), during a pending action (Rule 23) or for
use in a pending appeal (Rule 24).
 
Uses:
1. If the deposition is for use during a pending
trial action, it is commonly called a
deposition DE BENNE ESSE and is governed
by Rule 23.
2. If it is to perpetuate a testimony for use in
future proceedings as when it is sought
before the existence of an action, or for
cases on appeal, it is called a deposition IN
PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM.
DEPOSITION PENDING ACTION MAY BE TAKEN
WHETHER OR NOT AN ANSWER HAS BEEN FILED
Under sec 1, the deposition if there’s already a
pending action, may be taken whether or not the
answer has been filed. It is different because section
1 it just says upon ex parte motion. So the testimony
of a person whether a party or not may be taken by
deposition.
When you say ex parte motion, it requires a motion.
So you cannot on your owne decide na magkuha kog
deposition. You have to file a motion in court
although it is ex parte. It is ex parte whether or not
naa nay answer ang pikas party. It doesn’t matter.

Previous rule: leave of court is not required after an
answer has been sevred. So kung naka answer na,
you can just take deposition without leave of court
so wala nay motion you just have to file a notice. But
it s required before service of answer but after
jurisdiction acquired over the defendant or over the
property subject of the answer.
Meaning, kung wla pa naka answer although na
summon na, under the prior rules you need to file
motion to take deposition and the court may or may
not grant the motion. So wala na ning distinction
karon na after an answer has been filed or before
answer has been served, wala nan a sya.
So again, W/N an answer has been filed, a deposition
may be asked by filing an ex parte motion.
If it is someone detained in prison, you have to file a
motion. It’s not an ex parte motion. The court will
allow or deny upon such terms as the court
prescribes.
WHO MAY APPLY FOR THE TAKING OF A
DEPOSITION?
 
Section 1 provides that the taking of a
deposition may be at the instance of A PARTY (i.e.
the plaintiff and defendant). As to who may be a
deponent, Section 1 provides that it may be any
person, whether a party or not.
CAN A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATION
APPLY FOR DEPOSITION-TAKING?
Yes, for as long as it is a party. See next
slide.
SAN LUIS vs. ROJAS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 159127, March 3, 2008
Unequivocally, the rule does not make any
distinction or restriction as to who can avail of
deposition. The fact that private respondent is a non-
resident foreign corporation is immaterial. The rule
clearly provides that the testimony of any person
may be taken by deposition upon oral examination
or written interrogatories, at the instance of any
party. Depositions serve as a device for ascertaining
the facts relative to the issues of the case. The
evident purpose is to enable the parties, consistent
with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest
possible knowledge of the issues and facts before
civil trials and thus prevent the said trials from being
carried out in the dark.
WHEN MAY DEPOSITIONS BE TAKEN?
Depositions may be taken before action, at pre-trial,
while the action is pending or even pending appeal.
They may also be taken during the period of
execution of a final judgment.
DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. vs. HON. RUBEN
T. REYES G.R. No. 108229, August 24, 1993
Depositions may be taken at any time after the
institution of any action, whenever necessary or
convenient. There is no rule that limits deposition
taking only to the period of pretrial or before it; no
prohibition against the taking of depositions after
pretrial. Indeed, the law authorizes the taking of
depositions of witnesses before or after an appeal is
taken from the judgment of a Regional Trial Court
"to perpetuate their testimony for use in the event of
further proceedings in the said court" (Rule 134,
Rules of Court), and even during the process of
execution of a final and executory judgment (East
Asiatic Co. v. C.I.R., 40 SCRA 521, 544).
SEC. 2. Scope of examination.—Unless otherwise
ordered by the court as provided by Section 16 or 18
of this Rule, the deponent may be examined
regarding any matter, not privileged, which is
relevant to the subject of the pending action,
whether relating to the claim or defense of any other
party, including the existence, description, nature,
custody, condition, and location of any books,
documents, or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons having knowledge of
relevant facts. (2)
SUBJECT MATTER OF DEPOSITIONS
The deponent may be examined regarding any
matter, whether relating to the claim or defense of
any other party, including the existence, description,
nature, custody, condition, and location of any
books, documents, or other tangible things and the
identity and location of persons having knowledge of
relevant facts.
LIMITATIONS
While the deponent may be examined as to any
matter, this very broad scope of examination is
subject to the following limitations:
1. The matter inquired into must not be privileged;
2. The matter inquired into must be relevant to the
subject matter of the pending action; and
3. The examination is always subject to reasonable
regulation of the court under Sections 16 and 18 of
Rule 23.
1. The Section 24 of Rule 130 draws the types of
matter disqualification by reason of privileged
inquired into communication, to wit:
must not be (a) communication between husband and
privileged; wife;
(b) communication between attorney and
client;
(c) communication between physician and
 patient; required? Example, alangan walay direct exam? How
(d) communication between priest and will we know the nature of the testimony? We want
penitent; and to know what he will testify on and what are the
(e) public officers and public interest. matters within personal knowledge. And then cross
exam to determine if he is credible and if his
There are, however, other privileged matters testimony is from his personal knowledge or hearsay.
that are not mentioned by Rule 130. Among So to know kung tinuod ba jud iyang testimony.
them are the following:
(a) editors may not be compelled to disclose If there is no opportunity for cross exam, the
the source of published news; testimony will be considered hearsay and will not be
(b) voters may not be compelled to disclose admissible in evidence.
for whom they voted;
(c) trade secrets; So how about objections? Pwede baka mag object?
(d) information contained in tax census You can make objections however, the ywill NOT be
returns; and ruled upon by the deopisiton officer. They will just be
(e) bank deposits. recorded and later on during trial, the court will rule
on objections.
2. The Under Rule 128, Section 4, evidence must
matter Even if during depostition, there is an opportunity for
have such a relation to the fact in issue as to
inquired into induce belief in its existence or non- cross exam, that testimony is not substitute for a
must be existence. Furthermore, evidence ontestimony to be made in court.
relevant to collateral matters shall not be allowed,
the subject except when it tends in any reasonable So even if the witness already testified during the
matter of degree to establish the probability or deposition, still he must testify in court and repeat
the pending improbability of the fact in issue. his testimony in court where he can also be cross
action; and examined .So in effect he may be subjected to cross
Comment: for example, the case is for exam twice.
collection of a sum of money, unsay relevant
na issues? The existence of the contract of EXCEPTIONS TO RULE
loan, then amount then if nay interest However, are there instances when the deponent is
wollected, in writing ba? Does the aprty have not subjected to cross-examination at all and his
legal capacity to contract the loan? So that testimony
is is not considered hearsay?
relevant. Pero kung mangutana ka ug kinsa
may crush nimo tung highschool? Is that YES.
relevant? Of course not.
A. Under Section 4(c), the deposition of a
Thus, the deponent must be examined only witness may be used as his direct testimony. For
with respect to matters that constitute instance, the deponent’s testimony was taken but he
RELEVANT EVIDENCE, or evidence which has died before he was allowed to testify in court.
a tendency in reason to establish the
probability or improbability of the fact in
issue in the case. B. Also, under Section 4, the deposition of a
witness may be taken without and used against the
3. The While it is true that leave of court in certain adverse party for as long as he was duly notified of
examination instances is not required for the purpose of the taking of the deposition but simply ignores the
is always taking a deposition, depositions under Rule notice and fails to appear. The adverse party thus
subject to 23 relate to pending actions over which the loses the right to cross-examine. Despite lack of
reasonable court has control. The court is authorized to cross-examination, the deposition will not constitute
regulation issue orders to protect the parties and hearsay and is thus admissible as the deceased
of the court deponents under Section 16 or to terminate witness’ testimony.
under or limit the scope of the examination under
Sections 16 Section 18 of this Rule. SEC. 4. Use of depositions.—At the trial or upon the
and 18 of hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding,
Rule 23. any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible
under the rules of evidence, may be used against any
party who was present or represented at the taking
of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in
SEC. 3.Examination and cross- accordance with any one of the following provisions:
examination .—Examination and cross-examination
of deponents may proceed as permitted at the trial (a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the
under Sections 3 to 18 of Rule 132. (3) purpose of contradicting or impeaching the
testimony of the deponent as a witness; (comment:
Comment: during deposition, there is direct who can use a deposition taken? Any party so kung
examination, cross exam, redirect, recross. Why is ite
ako si plaintiff, or defendant, basta any party – to 1. Any part or all of a deposition - You don’t
contradict or impeach) even have to use all. Though we have again
a rule na kung the other party presents only
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at a part of a deposition the other party may
the time of taking the deposition was an officer, require that party who presented to disclose
director, or managing agent of a public or private everything.
corporation, partnership, or association which is a 2. So far as admissible – diba during
party may be used by an adverse party for any deposition, there are objections but the
purpose; (so for example, ikaw si plaintiff. That deposition officer will not yet rule so it will
deposition you can use against you opponent who is be the court which will rule on the
the defendant. Kay kinsa man nan a deposition? It’s objection.
the deposition of a party. This is different from letter a. 3. May be used against any aprty rpesent – so
Letter a is the deposition of ANY person, not if you were not present because you were
necessarily a party. So deposition of a witness. Kaning not notified then that deposition taken
letter b, party or his officer, director, etc. and you can cannot be used against you.
use this for any purpose.) 4. Or represented – so maskin wala ka didto
pero naa kay rep and you were notified, you
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a can be beound by the testimony during the
party, may be used by any party for any purpose if depositon
the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) 5. If you were absent pero dili notifed – you
that the witness resides at a distance more than one cannot say it is not binding against you. As
hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial or long as you notified of the deposition
hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears whether you were present or absent, it can
that his or her absence was procured by the party be used against you.
offering the deposition; or (3) that the witness is
unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, For what When to use
infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party A Deposition Use to contradict or impeach
offering the deposition has been unable to procure of any
the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) person (eg
upon application and notice, that such exceptional witness)
circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the B Deposition Use for any purpose
interest of justice and with due regard to the of a party
importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses (adverse
orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be party)
used; and C Witness Use for any purpose by any party
(any party can use his deposition. for example, A is a (may be provided:
witness. Either plaintiff/ defendant may use the any
testimony or deposition of A. if si A ang defendant, person or (1) that the witness is dead; or
pwede ba magamit ni plaintiff ang deposition ni A? the
yes. You can use for any purpose as long as the items adverse (2) that the witness resides at a distance
in 2-5 present. Take note that tehse instances are party) more than one hundred (100)
ones where you don’t need to present the witness kilometers from the place of trial or
again to testify. And even if you did not present that hearing, or is out of the Philippines,
witness to testify, the testimony taken during the unless it appears that his or her absence
deposition, if you offer that in evidence, it will not be was procured by the party offering the
considered hearsay. So again, dili na nimo need deposition; or
dalahon ang witness sa korte usab. All you need to
do is offer it as evidence. So dili na sya maconsider as (3) that the witness is unable to attend
hearsay. or testify because of age, sickness,
infirmity, or imprisonment; or
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence
by a party; the adverse party may require him or her (4) that the party offering the
to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part deposition has been unable to procure
introduced, and any party may introduce any other the attendance of the witness by
parts. (4a) subpoena; or

Note: use of deposition is different from taking (5) upon application and notice, that
depositions. The sue of deposition is relevant after such exceptional circumstances exist as
you have taken the depositon, can you use that? to make it desirable, in the interest of
How? In what instances? So what are the uses, when justice and with due regard to the
can you use, against whom can you use. importance of presenting the testimony
of witnesses orally in open court, to
Comment: allow the deposition to be used
 Note: deposition, under here, you don’t
have to bring him to court. The Depositions are principally made available by law to
deposition here can be used as a the parties as a means of informing themselves of all
substitute for oral testimony.
HOW: offer as evidence.
WHEN MAY A DEPOSITION BE USED IN A
PENDING ACTION?
Any part or all of a deposition may be used:
1. At the trial itself, as when the parties are
presenting their respective evidence-in-chief;
2. Upon the hearing of a motion;
An example of this is Rule 35 on Summary
Judgment.
Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant.
— A party seeking to recover upon a claim,
counterclaim, or crossclaim or to obtain a
declaratory relief may, at any time after the
pleading in answer thereto has been served,
move with supporting affidavits, depositions
or admissions for a summary judgment in
his favor upon all or any part thereof.
3. Upon the hearing of an interlocutory proceeding.
An example of this is Rule 61 on Support
Pendente Lite.so if you want to substantiate
that prayer for support, you can use a prior
deposition.
AGAINST WHOM MAY A DEPOSITION BE USED?
Any part or all of a deposition may be used against:
1.any party who was present; or
2.a party who was represented at the taking of the
deposition; or
3.a party who did not appear or represented but was
duly notified of the scheduled deposition taking.
Take note that in all of these instances, the party
against whom the deposition is to be used was duly
notified of the deposition taking.
USES OF DEPOSITION
RULE TO REMEMBER
Note, that a deposition is never intended as an easy
substitute for actual testimony in court. The
principle therefore to remember is that the
deponent’s testimony must be repeated in court for
it to be admitted as evidence. The deponent is not
exempt from testifying in court, as a general rule. An
exception to this is when the deponent is the adverse
party under paragraph (b).
the relevant facts; they are not therefore generally
meant to be a substitute for the actual testimony in
open court of a party or witness. The deponent must
as a rule be presented for oral examination in open
court at the trial or hearing (DASMARIÑAS
GARMENTS, INC. vs. HON. RUBEN T. REYES, G.R. No.
108229, August 24, 1993) This is a requirement of the
rules of evidence.
USES OF DEPOSITION
(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the
purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony
of deponent as a witness;
In both the taking of a deposition and the
presentation of testimonial evidence in court, the
deponent or witness is sworn to an oath to tell the
truth. Any falsehood in these occasions opens the
witness to perjury.
The deposition of an intended witness in court may
be taken in advance. In essence, the taking of his
deposition under oath preserves the testimony for
later use in trial. It is only a means of knowing what
the witness will testify about.
Example, nay witness who testified in court and then
different say from his deposition. Kung ikaw ang
lawyer agains that aprty unya gusto nimo icontradict,
you can use that deposition.
Possible purpose is to show na mali iyang testimony
or wla ta kabalo kung asa ang tama but naestablish
nato na bakakon si witness.
IMPEACHMENT
Suppose that the deponent is presented as a witness.
The parties, adverse or not, may espouse a
reasonable expectation that the deponent will testify
exactly according to how he testified when his
deposition was taken. Suppose further that the
deponent reversed his story and totally contradicted
his own deposition. Any party may then use his
deposition to contradict or impeach the testimony of
the deponent as a witness, in relation to Rule 132,
Section 11:
NOTE that under Rule 132, Section 11, it is the
adverse party who can impeach the witness.
Comment:
When you impeach a witness, you can only impeach
the witness of the adverse party. But I cannot
impeach the testimony of my own wtness. So if ako si
plaintiff then nagpresent ko ug witness. Unya pag
trial, nalahi naman iyang gi ingon. Contrary na iyang
testimony. I cannot impeach him as a general rule.
Why? Ako ang nagrpesent ana na witness so I
guarantee na dili na sya bakakon and he’s credible.
Unya lahi diay iyang giistorya, I am already estopped
from questioning his credibility.
GENERAL RULE: The party who presented the witness
has no right to impeach his own witness
EXCEPTION: under Rule 132, Section 12:
a. Hostile or unwilling witness
b. witness who is an adverse party or an
officer, director, or managing agent of a
public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an
adverse party
Section 12. Party may not impeach his own witness.
Except with respect to witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10, the party
producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his
credibility.
Paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 10 refer to an
unwilling or hostile witness and to a witness who is
an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing
agent of a public or private corporation or of a
partnership or association which is an adverse party,
respectively.
(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the
time of taking the deposition was an officer, director,
or managing agent of a public or private corporation,
partnership, or association which is a party may be
used by an adverse party for any purpose;
Example: ako si plaintiff then nay deposition taking
and in that deposition si defendant, deponent sya.
Kato iyahang statement favourable sa ako or a
portion of it I can use to benefit me. Can I use that?
Yes under lletter B. or maybe dili kalaban nako, pero
nay deposition iyahang president. At the time of the
deposition taking, kato iyang testimony magamit
nako as a plaintiff. Can I use tha deposition? YES.
Do I need to present that person in court? NO. he
does not have to testify.
What to do to use it? Katong transcript sa iyan
deposition, ican use that as my evidence. How?
During the formal offer, didto nako na sya iapil sa
akong documentary evidence. So another exception
to the rule that the deponent must still testify in
court.
Note that paragraph (b) is similar to Rule 132,
Section 10 (e). Here the deponent is himself a party.
His deposition may be used by the adverse party for
any purpose, including impeachment. Because the
use of the deposition is not limited to impeachment,
this paragraph is an exception to the rule that the
deponent must still testify in court. Hence, any
admission made by the party-deponent in his
deposition can be used as evidence against him
without having to present him as a witness in court.
Slide:
Note that, if the party-deponent makes admissions
that are favrable to him, such admissions do not bind
the adverse party. These admissions are in the
concept of SELF-SERVING ADMISSION and are
therefore inadmissible.
REQUISITES OF SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE
1)The testimony is favorable to the declarant;
2)It is made extrajudicially; and
3)It is made in anticipation of litigation.
Comment:
Q; what if katong kalaban nako na defendant iyahang
statement during deposition, favourable tanan sa
iyaha. Bound ba ko by that statement?
A: NO. if a party deponent makes admissions
favourable to him. Those are self serving admissions
not admissible against the plaintiff. Kung sidefendant
nag ingon didto.
So kung halimbawa ako si plaintiff ug sya si
defendant si defendant, nag ingon sya ug something
against himself, magamit na against sa iyaha. Pero
kung muingon sya ug something na in his favour, dili
na magamit against sa ako. Naturally kung ikaw ang
tao, dili ka muingon ug something na makadaot sa
imo. But if you say something against you, most
probably tinuod na sya. Kay usually dili ta magreveal
ug something na ikadaot nato so when we do, that’s
probably true.
REASONS FOR INADMISSIBILITY
1.A man may be safely believed if he declares against
his own interest, but not if he advocates his interest.
(Lichauco v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., 84 Phil. 342)
2.It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay
evidence, that, the lack of opportunity for cross-
examination by the adverse party. (National
Development Co., v. Workmen's Compensation
Commission, 19 SCRA 865)
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party,
may be used by any party for any purpose if the court
finds:
(1) that the witness is dead, or
(2) that the witness resides at a distance more than
one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial
or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it
appears that his absence was procured by the party
offering the deposition, or
(3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify
because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment,
or
(4) that the party offering the deposition has been
unable to procure the attendance of the witness by
subpoena; or
(5) upon application and notice, that such exceptional opportunity but that testimony is still admissible
circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the against you.
interest of justice and with due regard to the
importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses These situations highlight the importance of cross-
orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be examination and making timely objections during
used; and deposition -taking. If the deposition is admitted as a
substitute for oral testimony, there is no more
Comment: memo (not word for word) what is opportunity to cross-examine or object later during
mentioned here. Here, even without presenting the trial. At least, when there was prior cross-examination
witness in court, magamit nimo iyang testimony and objections during deposition-taking, the
during deposition. admission of the deposition in place of oral
testimony will always be subject to the said
Paragraph [c] is an exception to paragraph [a]. objections.
Paragraph A Par B Paragraph C
Paragraph The principle conceding admissibility to a deposition
[a] It is only in Paragraph [c] allows
applies only to a paragraph [b] the use of the when the deponent is dead, out of the Philippines, or
deposition of a which applies deposition of otherwise
a unable to come to court to testify, is
witness for the use of WITNESS for any consistent with another rule of evidence, found in
contradicting or deposition for purpose. Section 47, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Stated
impeaching his any purpose otherwise, and by
testimony. but it refers to necessary SEC. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former
the implication, proceeding. — The testimony or deposition of a
the
deposition of instances referred to witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a
the adverse under paragraph [c] former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative,
party. are also exceptions involving the same parties and subject matter, may be
to the principle that given in evidence against the adverse party who had
a deponent is not the opportunity to crossexamine him.
exempt from
testifying in court. ASANTAMARIA vs. CLEARY G.R. No. 197122, June
deposition taken 15, 2016
under paragraph [c] This case stems from a motion for court
can be used as authorization
a to take deposition in Los Angeles by
substitute for oral respondent Thomas Cleary, an American citizen and
testimony. Los Angeles resident who filed a civil suit against
petitioners Ingrid Sala Santamaria, Astrid Sala Boza,
Deposition of any Deposition of Witness (may be any and Kathryn Go-Perez before the Regional Trial Court
person (eg witness) a party person or the
of Cebu.
(adverse adverse party)
party) Issue: Whether or not a foreigner plaintiff residing
Purpose is to Any purpose Any purpose abroad who chose to file a civil suit in the Philippines
contradict/impeac is allowed to take deposition abroad for his direct
h testimony testimony on the ground that he is "out of the
Note: deposition,Philippines" pursuant to Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of
under here, youthe Rules of Court.
don’t have to bring
him to court. The On January 22, 2009, Cleary moved for court
deposition here can authorization to take deposition. He prayed that his
be used as deposition
a be taken before the Consulate-General of
substitute for oral the Philippines in Los Angeles and be used as his
testimony. direct testimony.

HOW: offer Santamaria and Boza opposed the Motion and

evidence.
Comment: if you are the party, you should really
exercise your right to cross examine because nay
instances under the rules of court na katong
deposition, magamit na to sya against you. Dili na
sya need ipresent in court again so wala na kay
opportunity to cross examine him in court. So dapat
sa deposition pa lang gi cross examine nimo kay dili
nimo macontest unsa iyang gipang ingon didto.
Halimbawa, namatay diay tung witness later on pero
pag depose, wala ka nag cross. So wala na kay
as
argued that the right to take deposition is not
absolute. They claimed that Cleary chose the
Philippine system to file his suit, and yet he deprived
the court and the parties the opportunity to observe
his demeanor and directly propound questions on
him.
Go-Perez filed a separate Opposition,arguing that
the oral deposition was not intended for discovery
purposes if Cleary deposed himself as plaintiff. Since
he elected to file suit in the Philippines, he should
submit himself to the procedures and testify before
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. Moreover, Go-Perez
argued that oral deposition in the United States
would prejudice, vex, and oppress her and her co-
petitioners who would need to incur costs to attend.
RULING: YES PWEDE to iyang gipangayo.
As regards the taking of depositions, Rule 23, Section
1 is clear that the testimony of any person may be
taken by deposition upon oral examination or written
interrogatories at the instance of any party. (so walay
distinction whetehr you are the plaintiff or defendant)
San Luis explained any distinction or deposition.”
that this provision "does not make restriction as to
who can avail of deposition”
On the use of depositions taken, we refer to Rule 23,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court. This Court has held
that "depositions may be used without the deponent
being actually called to the witness stand by the
proponent, under certain conditions and for certain
limited purposes.”
These exceptional cases are enumerated in Rule 23,
Section 4(c) as follows:
(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a
party, may be used by any party for any purpose if
the court finds:
(1) that the witness is dead; or
(2) that the witness resides at distance more than
one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of
trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines,
unless it appears that his absence was procured
by the party offering the deposition; or
(3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify
because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment;
or
(4) that the party offering the deposition has been
unable to procure the attendance of the witness by
subpoena; or
(5) upon application and notice, that such
exceptional circumstances exist as to make it
desirable, in the interest of justice and with due
regard to the importance of presenting the
testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow
the deposition to be used[.]
The difference between the taking of depositions
and the use of depositions taken is apparent in
Rule 23, which provides separate sections to
govern them.
Note: Taking of deposition and use of depostions are
governed by different sections. The grounds for
taking a deposition are different from when the use
of that deposition already taken may be allowed.
SC:
Jurisprudence has also discussed the importance of
this distinction and its implications:
The availability of the proposed deponent to testify
in court does not constitute "good cause" to justify
the court’s order that his deposition shall not be
taken. That the witness is unable to attend or testify
is one of the grounds when the deposition of a
witness may be used in court during the trial. But the
same reason cannot be successfully invoked to
prohibit the taking of his deposition.
Comment: ngano man diay kung ang witness pwede
ra sya mkatestify in court later? It doesn’t mean na
dili na wpede kuhaon iyang deposition. In fact
katong deposition ni witness, dili to sya iyang
testimony in court. Dapat, dalahon na pud sya to
testify. Otherwise, it would be hearsay. So it is not a
ground na imuhang ideny ang taking of a deposition
just because pwede pa sya makatestify incourt.
Halimbawa ang question is the witness whose depo
was already taken is unable to attend or testify in
court under sec 4 c of rule 23, that is a ground when
the depo of a witness may be used in court during
trial. So kana na ground, you cannot use that to
prevent the taking of a deposition.
The right to take statements and the right to use
them in court have been kept entirely distinct. The
utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions;
restrictions are imposed upon their use. As a result,
there is accorded the widest possible opportunity for
knowledge by both parties of all the facts before the
trial. Such of this testimony as may be appropriate
for use as a substitute for viva voce examination may
be introduced at the trial; the remainder of the
testimony, having served its purpose in revealing the
facts to the parties before trial, drops out of the
judicial picture.
[stopped page 53]
. . . [U]nder the concept adopted by the new Rules,
the deposition serves the double function of a
method of discovery —with use on trial not
necessarily contemplated — and a method of
presenting testimony. Accordingly, no limitations
other than relevancy and privilege have been placed
on the taking of depositions, while the use at the trial
is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the use
of oral testimony wherever practicable.(Emphasis
supplied)
The rules and jurisprudence support greater leeway
in allowing the parties and their witnesses to be
deposed in the interest of collecting information for
the speedy and complete disposition of cases.
In light of the general philosophy of full discovery of
relevant facts and the board statement of scope in
Rule 24, and in view of the power of the court under
Sections 16 and 18 of said Rule to control the details
of time, place, scope, and financing for the
protection of the deponents and parties, it is fairly
rare that it will be ordered that a deposition should
not be taken at all. All motions under these
subparagraphs of the rule must be supported by
"good cause" and a strong showing is required
before a party will be denied entirely the right to take
a deposition.
A mere allegation, without proof, that the deposition
is being taken in bad faith is not a sufficient ground
for such an order. Neither is an allegation that it will
subject the party to a penalty or forfeiture. The mere
fact that the information sought by deposition has
already been obtained through a bill of particulars,
interrogatories, or other depositions will not suffice,
although if it is entirely repetitious a deposition may
be forbidden. The allegation that the deponent
knows nothing about the matters involved does not
justify prohibiting the taking of a deposition, nor that
whatever the witness knows is protected by the
"work product doctrine," nor that privileged
information or trade secrets will be sought in the
course of the examination, nor that all the
transactions were either conducted or confirmed in
writing.
Comment: so sc said
General rule : this deposition is allowed. Rare lang
ang instances that the court
Paragraph 9.02 of the Agreement is clear that the
parties "waive any other preferential jurisdiction by
reason of domicile.” If respondent filed the suit in the
United States—which he had the option to do under
the Agreement—this would have been even more
costly, time-consuming, and disadvantageous to
petitioners who are all Filipinos residing in the
Philippines. There is no question that respondent can
file the case before our courts. With respondent
having elected to file suit in Cebu, the bone of
contention now is on whether he can have his
deposition taken in the United States. The trial court
ruled that respondent should consequently submit
himself to the processes and procedures under the
Rules of Court.
Respondent did avail himself of the processes and
procedures under the Rules of Court when he filed
his Motion. He invoked Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the
Rules of Court and requested to have his deposition
taken in Los Angeles as he was "out of the
Philippines."
Moreover, Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court no
longer requires leave of court for the taking of
deposition after an answer has been served.
According to respondent, he only sought a court
order when the Department of Foreign Affairs
required one so that the deposition may be taken
before the Philippine Embassy or Consulate.
That neither the presiding judge nor the parties will
be able to personally examine and observe the
conduct of a deponent does not justify denial of the
right to take deposition. This objection is common to
all depositions.Allowing this reason will render
nugatory the provisions in the Rules of Court that
allow the taking of depositions.
As suggested by the Court of Appeals, the parties
may also well agree to take deposition
by written interrogatories to afford
petitioners the opportunity to cross-examine without
the need to fly to the United States.
That respondent is "not suffering from any
impairment, physical or otherwise" does not address
the ground raised by respondent in his Motion.
Respondent referred to Rule 23, Section 4(c)(2) of the
Rules of Court, in that he was "out of the Philippines.”
This Section does not qualify as to the condition of
the deponent who is outside the Philippines.
Petitioners rely on Northwest in that absent any
compelling or valid reason, the witness must
personally testify in open court. They add that the
more recent Republic v. Sandiganbayan reiterated
the rulings in Northwest; specifically, that Northwest
emphasized that the "court should always see to it
that the safeguards for the protection of the parties
and deponents are firmly maintained.” Moreover,
"[w]here the deposition is taken not for discovery
purposes, but to accommodate the deponent, then
the deposition should be rejected in evidence.”
Northwest and Republic are not on all fours with this
case.
Northwest involved a deposition in New York found
to have been irregularly taken. The deposition took
place on July 24, 1995, two (2) days before the trial
court issued the order allowing deposition. The
Consul that swore in the witness and the
stenographer was different from the Consulate
Officer who undertook the deposition proceedings.
In this case, on the other hand, deposition taking was
not allowed by the trial court to begin with.
In Northwest, respondent Camille Cruz’s opposition
to the notice for oral deposition
included a suggestion for
written interrogatories as an alternative.This
would have allowed cross-interrogatories, which
would afford her the opportunity to rebut matters
raised in the deposition in case she had contentions.
However, this suggestion was denied by the trial
court for being time-consuming. In this case,
petitioners argued even against written
interrogatories for being a mile of difference from
open-court testimony.
In Republic, the issue involved Rule 23, Section 4(c)
(3) of the Rules of Court in relation to Rule 130,
Section 47 on testimonies and depositions at a
former proceeding. The deposition of Maurice Bane
was taken in London for one case, and what the
court disallowed was its use in another case.
In sum, Rule 23, Section 1 of the Rules of Court gives
utmost freedom in the taking of depositions. Section
16 on protection orders, which include an order that
deposition not be taken, may only be issued after
notice and for good cause shown.
However, petitioners’ arguments in support
of the trial court’s Order denying the taking of
deposition fails to convince as good cause shown.
The civil suit was filed pursuant to an agreement that
gave respondent the option of filing the case before
our courts or the courts of California. It would have
been even more costly, time-consuming,
and disadvantageous to petitioners had
respondent filed the case in the United States.
In any case, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court still allows
for objections to admissibility during trial. The
difference between admissibility of evidence and
weight of evidence has long been laid down in
jurisprudence. These two are not to be equated.
Admissibility considers factors such as competence
and relevance of submitted evidence. On the other
hand, weight is concerned with the persuasive
tendency of admitted evidence.
COMPARATIVE TABLE REGARDING USES OF
DEPOSITIONS
PARAGRAPH A
The deponent is any witness, whether a party or not.
PARAGRAPH B
The deponent is a party or an officer of a party.
PARAGRAPH C
The deponent is any witness, whether a party or not,
who is dead, not bound by a subpoena, incapacitated
by age, sick,infirm, or imprisoned, or
unable to attend despite being
subpoenaed.
The deposition may be used by ANY PARTY for any
purpose, but logically excluding
impeachment as the witness cannot testify in
court.
A deposition taken under paragraph [c]
can be used as a substitute for oral testimony.
Deponent
Use of Deposition The deposition may be used by
ANY PARTY to impeach the testimony of the
deponent as a witness. The deposition may be
used by AN ADVERSE PARTY for any purpose, incl.
impeachment.
Need for Testimony in Court The deponent
must be subsequently presented as a witness in court
to serve the purpose of impeachment. The
deponent need not be presented so that any
admission contained in the deposition may be used
against him. Any admission embodied in the
deposition is
evidence per se.
(d) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence
by a party, the adverse party may require him to
introduce all of it which is relevant to the part
introduced, and any party may introduce any other
parts.
Paragraph [d] simply means that no party may limit
the full use of a deposition simply because only
some part of it is favorable to him. The rule allows
the following remedies available to the adverse party:
1. To require the proponent to introduce all of the
deposition relevant to the part introduced;
2. To introduce any other parts himself.
SEC. 5. Effect of substitution of parties.—Substitution
of parties does not affect the right to use depositions
previously taken; and, when an action has been
dismissed and another action involving the same
subject is afterward brought between the same
parties or their representatives or successors in
interest, all depositions lawfully taken and duly filed
in the former action may be used in the latter as if
originally taken therefor. (5)
IMMUTABILITY OF DEPOSITIONS
Section 5 provides in substance that a deposition,
once lawfully taken, is immutable, for lack of a better
term. A deposition may thus be used
notwithstanding:
1. The substitution of parties;
2. The dismissal of the action and the subsequent
filing of another action involving the same subject
between the same parties or their representatives or
successors in interest.

Hence, all depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in
the former action may be used in the latter as if
originally taken therefor.
SEC. 6. Objections to
admissibility.— Subject to the provisions of
Section 29 of this Rule, objection may be made at the
trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any
deposition or part thereof for any reason which
would require the exclusion of the evidence if the
witness were then present and testifying. (6)
SEC. 7. Effect of taking depositions.—A party shall
not be deemed to make a person his or her own
witness for any purpose by taking his or her
deposition. (7a)
NO ESTOPPEL
A party cannot be estopped by resorting to
depositions as a mode of discovery. Since it is
precisely a mode of discovery, a party who discovers
nothing useful or favorable, through the deposition
of a person, is not bound to present the said
deponent as a witness. Had the rule been otherwise,
the law will in effect penalize resort to the modes of
discovery.
Take note, however, that there is no prohibition on
the part of the adverse party to use the deposition
against the party who applied for its taking or to
make the deponent his witness.
SEC. 8. Effect of using depositions.—The introduction
in evidence of the deposition or any part thereof for
any purpose other than that of contradicting or
impeaching the deponent makes the deponent the
witness of the party introducing the deposition, but
this shall not apply to the use by an adverse party of
a deposition as described in paragraph (b) of Section
4 of this Rule. (8)
USE, NOT TAKING, OF DEPOSITION MAKES A
DEPONENT A PARTY’S WITNESS
Simply taking a person’s deposition does not make
him the party’s witness. However, once the
deposition is offered in court, the deponent becomes
the party or proponent’s witness.
By way of exception, offering a deposition still does
not make the deponent a party’s witness:
1. When the deposition is offered to contradict or the
deponent as witness;
2. When the deposition of the adverse party is
offered.
impeach
the one
FORTUNE CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 108119, January 19, 1994
The right to take statements and the right to use
them in court have been kept entirely distinct. The
utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions;
restrictions are imposed upon their use. As a result,
there is accorded the widest possible opportunity for
knowledge by both parties of all the facts before the
trial. Such of this testimony as may be appropriate
for use as a substitute for viva voce examination may
be introduced at the trial; the remainder of the
testimony, having served its purpose in revealing the
facts to the parties before trial, drops out of the
judicial picture.
Under the concept adopted by the new Rules, the
deposition serves the double function of a method of
discovery with use on trial not necessarily
contemplated and a method of presenting
testimony. Accordingly, no limitations other than
relevancy and privilege have been placed on the
taking of depositions, while the use at the trial is
subject to circumscriptions looking toward the use of
oral testimony wherever practicable.

SEC. 9. Rebutting deposition.—At the trial or hearing,
any party may rebut any relevant evidence contained
in a deposition whether introduced by him or her or
by any other party. (9a)
SEC. 10. Persons before whom depositions may be
taken within the Philippines.— Within the Philippines,
depositions must be taken before any judge, or
person referred to in Section 14 hereof. (10)
BEFORE WHOM TAKEN (DEPOSITIONS PENDING
ACTION)
WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES
Within the Philippines, a deposition need not be
taken before a judge, although it may be taken
before one. It may also be taken before a notary
public (Sec. 10, Rule 23, Rules of Court) or before any
person authorized to administer oaths if the parties
so stipulate in writing (Sec. 14, Rule 23, Rules of
Court). Examples of other persons authorized to
administer oaths can be found in the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987, as follows:
Sec. 41. Officers Authorized to Administer Oath. —
The following officers have general authority to
administer oaths: President; VicePresident; Members
and Secretaries of both Houses of the Congress;
Members of the Judiciary; Secretaries of
Departments; provincial governors and lieutenant-
governors; city mayors; municipal mayors; bureau
directors; regional directors; clerks of courts;
registrars of deeds; other civilian officers in the public
service of the government of the Philippines whose
appointments are vested in the President and are
subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments; all other constitutional officers; and
notaries public."
SEC. 11. Persons before whom depositions may be
taken in foreign countries.—In a foreign state or
country, depositions may be taken (a) on notice
before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the
Republic of the Philippines; (b) before such person or
officer as may be appointed by commission or under
letters rogatory; or (c) the person referred to in
Section 14 hereof. (11)
BEFORE WHOM TAKEN (DEPOSITIONS PENDING
ACTION) OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES
Outside the Philippines, a deposition may be taken
before:
(a) a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the
Republic of the Philippines;
(b) (b) such person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or letters rogatory; or (c) a person
authorized to administer oaths by written stipulation
of the parties.
SEC. 12. Commission or letters rogatory.—A
commission or letters rogatory shall be issued only
when necessary or convenient, on application and
notice, and on such terms and with such
direction as are just appropriate.
Officers may be designated in notices or
commissions either by name or descriptive title and
letters rogatory may be addressed to the
appropriate judicial authority in the
foreign country. (12)
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LETTERS ROGATORY AND
COMMISSIONS
DULAY vs. DULAY
G.R. No. 158857, November 11, 2005
FACTS: In a complaint for recovery of his bank
deposit with prayer for a writ of attachment and
damages, Rodrigo S. Dulay, a naturalized American
citizen, alleged that upon his petition sometime in
October of 1996, his brother Godofredo S. Dulay, Sr.
and nephew Pfeger R. Dulay immigrated to the
United States of America. Having nurtured affection,
love and trust for his nephew Pfeger, Rodrigo
opened a trust account with the Bank of Boston on
27 January 1997 with a deposit of Two Hundred
Thirty Thousand U.S. Dollars ($230,000.00), naming
Pfeger as trustee thereof. Pfeger emptied the
account. Rodrigo filed a petition for the issuance of
letters rogatory in order to get the depositions of
several witnesses residing abroad through the Clerk
of Court of Boston, Ma., USA. Petitioners, on the
other hand, moved to be allowed to file cross-
examination questions to respondent’s written
interrogatories, which the trial court granted.
Meanwhile, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of failure to prosecute. This
was however denied by the trial court, which instead
allowed Rodrigo to complete his depositions. As it
turned out, however, the depositions could not be
taken before the Clerk of Court of Massachusetts, but
were taken instead before a notary public in New
York.
On 2 February 2000, Rodrigo submitted to the trial
court his answers to the interrogatories and cross
interrogatories of petitioners given before a notary
public in the United States. Thereafter, petitioners
filed their Motion Reiterating Motion to Dismiss
Dated July 10, 2000, which the trial court denied in its
28 September 2000 Order. In the same Order, the
trial court directed respondent to have the written
and cross interrogatories taken by the notary public
authenticated by the consulate. Thus, respondent
filed a motion to withdraw the answers so that he
could have them authenticated by a Philippine
consul in the United States.
On 10 January 2001, petitioners filed an Omnibus
Motion, praying that the written interrogatories be
declared inadmissible and reiterating their prayer for
the dismissal of the complaint. The lower court
denied the motion on 20 February 2001, at the same
time directing the archival of the case while waiting
for the documents from the United States. According
to the trial court, the dismissal of the case is
improper considering that Rodrigo had already
commenced presenting his evidence and that it is
mandated to hear the evidence on the counterclaims
of the petitioners. Anent the objection to the
admission of the answers to the written
interrogatories, the trial court stated that the
deposition taken before the Notary Public from New
York, whose authority was duly certified by the
Philippine Consul in New York, substantially
complied with the Rules of Court.
While the letters rogatory issued by the trial court
specifically directed the Clerk of Court of Boston to
take the depositions needed in the case, it became
impossible to follow the directive since the Clerk of
Court of Boston merely brushed it aside and refused
to cooperate. Respondent cannot be faulted for the
resultant delay brought about by this circumstance.
Neither can the trial court be faulted for allowing the
admission of the depositions taken not in strict
adherence to its original directive, nor for directing
the petitioner to have the depositions authenticated.
It was not within the trial court’s power, much less
the respondent’s to force the Clerk of Court of
Boston to have the deposition taken before it. It
would be illogical and unreasonable to expect
respondent to comply with the letters rogatory
without the cooperation of the very institution or
personality named in the letters rogatory and
requested to examine the witnesses. After all, while a
court had the authority to entertain a discovery
request, it is not required to provide judicial
assistance thereto. This reality was recognized by the
trial court when it ordered respondent to have the
questioned depositions authenticated by the
Philippine consulate. Indeed, refusing the allowance
of the depositions in issue would be going directly
against the purpose of taking the depositions in the
first place, that is, the disclosure of facts which are
relevant to the proceedings in court.
More importantly, the Court finds that
respondent substantially complied with the
requirements for depositions taken in foreign
countries.
In our jurisdiction, depositions in foreign countries
may be taken: (a) on notice before a secretary of
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the
Philippines; (b) before such person or officer as may
be appointed by commission or under letters
rogatory; or (c) before any person authorized to
administer oaths as stipulated in writing by the
parties. While letters rogatory are
requests to foreign tribunals,
commissions are directives to officials of the issuing
jurisdiction.
If the deposition is to be taken in a foreign country
where the Philippines has no secretary of embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul or
consular agent, it may be taken only before such
person or officer as may be appointed by
commission or under letters rogatory.
In the instant case, the authentication made by the
consul was a ratification of the authority of the
notary public who took the questioned depositions.
The deposition was, in effect, obtained through a
commission, and no longer through letters rogatory.
It must be noted that this move was even sanctioned
by the trial court by virtue of its Order dated 28
September 2000. With the ratification of the
depositions in issue, there is no more impediment to
their admissibility.
Besides, the allowance of the deposition can not be
said to have caused any prejudice to the adverse
party. They were given the opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses through their cross-
interrogatories, which were in turn answered by the
deponents. Save for the complaint of delay in the
proceedings, petitioners were unable to point out
any injury they suffered as a result of the trial court’s other facts to show commission is inadequate or
action. cannot be executed) (emphasis supplied).

CAN DEPOSITION TAKING UNDER SECTION 12 TAKE

The ends of justice are reached not only through the PLACE IN A COUNTRY NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE
speedy disposal of cases, but more importantly, PHILIPPINES?
through a meticulous and comprehensive evaluation
of the merits of the case. The parties’ right to be
given full opportunity to ventilate their cases should DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. vs. HON. RUBEN T.
not be hindered by a strict adherence to REYES G.R. No. 108229, August 24, 1993
technicalities. After all, as this Court has so often
enunciated, rules of procedure are not inflexible tools
designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and Petitioner would however prevent the carrying out of
promote the administration of justice. A strict and the commission on various grounds. The first is that
rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities the depositiontaking will take place in "a foreign
that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial jurisdiction not recognized by the Philippines in view
justice, must be avoided. of its 'oneChina policy.'" This is inconsequential.
What matters is that the deposition is taken before a
DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. vs. HON. RUBEN T. Philippine official acting by authority of the
REYES G.R. No. 108229, August 24, 1993 Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and in
virtue of a commission duly issued by the Philippine
Court in which the action is pending, and in
A commission may be defined as "(a)n instrument accordance, moreover, with the provisions of the
issued by a court of justice, or other competent Philippine Rules of Court pursuant to which
tribunal, to authorize a person to take depositions, or opportunity for cross examination of the deponent
do any other act by authority of such court or will be fully accorded to the adverse party.
tribunal" (Feria, J., Civil Procedure, 1969 ed., p. 415,
citing Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, p. 200). Letters
rogatory, on the other hand, may be defined as "(a)n
instrument sent in the name and by the authority of
a judge or court to another, requesting the latter to
cause to be examined, upon interrogatories filed in a
cause pending before the former, a witness who is
within the jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom
such letters are addressed" (Feria, J., op. cit., citing SEC. 13. Disqualification by interest.
Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, p. 653). Section 12, Rule —No deposition shall be taken before a person who
24 just quoted states that a commission is addressed is a relative within the sixth degree
to "officers . . . designated . . . either by name or of consanguinity or affinity, or employee or
descriptive title," while letters rogatory are addressed counsel of any of the parties; or who is a relative
to some "appropriate judicial authority in the foreign within the same degree, or employee of such
state." Noteworthy in this connection is the counsel; or who is financially interested in the action.
indication in the Rules that letters rogatory may be (13)
applied for and issued only after a commission has
been "returned unexecuted" as is apparent from
Form 21 of the "Judicial Standard Forms" appended
to the Rules of Court, which requires the inclusion in
a "petition for letters rogatory" of the following
paragraph, viz.:

SEC. 14. Stipulations regarding taking of depositions.

xxx xxx xxx —If the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions
may be taken before any person authorized to
3. A commission issued by this Court on the ______ administer oaths, at any time or place, in accordance
day of ______, 19__, to take the testimony of (here with these Rules, and when so taken may be used
name the witness or witnesses) in (here name the like other depositions. (14)
foreign country in which the testimony is to be
taken), before _________________ (name of
officer), was returnedunexecuted by SEC. 15. Deposition upon oral examination; notice;
__________________ on the ground that time and place.—A party desiring to take the
____________, all of which more fully appears from the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall
certificate of said give reasonable notice in writing to every other party
__________ to said commission and to the action. The notice shall state the time and
made a part hereof by attaching it hereto (or state place for taking the deposition and the name and
address of each person to be examined, if known,
and if the name is at known, a general description
sufficient to identify him or her or the particular class
or group to which he or she belongs. On motion of
any party upon whom the notice is served, the court
may for cause shown enlarge or shorten the time.
(15a)
SEC. 16. Orders for the protection of parties and
deponents.— After notice is served for taking a
deposition by oral examination, upon motion
seasonably made by any party or by the person to be
examined and for good cause shown, the court in
which the action is pending may make the following
orders:
2. That it may be taken only at some designated
place other than that stated in the notice;
3. That it may be taken only on written
interrogatories; 4. That certain matters shall not be
inquired into;
5. That the scope of the examination shall be held
with no one present except the parties to the action
and their officers or counsel;
6. That after being sealed, the deposition shall be
opened only by order of the court; 7. That secret
processes, developments, or research need not be
disclosed;
8. That the parties shall simultaneously file specified
documents or information enclosed in sealed
envelopes to be opened as directed by the court;

a) That the deposition shall not be taken;

The court may make any other order which justice
requires to protect the party or witness from
b) That the deposition may be taken only at some annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.
designated place other than that stated in the notice;

c) That the deposition may be taken only on written

interrogatories;

d) That certain matters shall not be inquired into;

e) That the scope of the examination shall be held

with no one present except the parties to the action
and their officers or counsel;

f) That after being sealed the deposition shall be

opened only by order of the court;

g) That secret processes, developments, or research

need not be disclosed; or

h) That the parties shall simultaneously file specified

documents or information enclosed in sealed
envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.

The court may make any other order which justice

requires to protect the party or witness from
annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression. (16a)

PROTECTIVE ORDERS

What orders may court issue for the protection of

parties and deponents? After notice is served for
taking a deposition by oral examination, upon
motion seasonably made by any party or by the
person to be examined and for good cause shown,
the court in which the action is pending may issue
the following orders:

1. That the deposition shall not be taken;